Please note: For the purposes of this essay, all the following definitions are taken from the on-line Oxford English Dictionaries.

racism

1 Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
‘a programme to combat racism’

1.1 The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
‘theories of racism’
********************************************

racist

A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
***********************************************

race

Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.
*************************************************

ethnic

adjective

1 Relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition.
‘ethnic and cultural rights and traditions’
‘leaders of ethnic communities’

1.1 Relating to national and cultural origins.
‘pupils from a wide variety of ethnic origins’

1.2 Denoting origin by birth or descent rather than by present nationality.
‘ethnic Indian populations’

1.3 Characteristic of or belonging to a non-Western cultural tradition.
‘ethnic jewellery’
‘folk and ethnic music’

2 archaic Neither Christian nor Jewish; pagan or heathen.

noun
(dated, offensive)

A member of an ethnic minority.

Usage

Ethnic is sometimes used in a euphemistic way to refer to non-white people as a whole, as in a radio station which broadcasts to the ethnic community in Birmingham. Although this usage is quite common, more specific terms such as ‘black’ or ‘Asian’ are preferable. Note that use of the word as a noun is often regarded as offensive, especially in British English, and is best avoided.

**************************************************************

All the above definitions may, in some way be valid. However, there is a contention that the human animal is not divided into 'races' but that depending upon the circumstances of their geographical location at the time of their birth, they may indeed be different in many ways but that is how they have adapted to their surroundings over many, what we call 'years'.
However 'many' years we can have no idea, since our personal knowledge of 'age' can only be within the range of our personal existence.
We may be aware of what we call our parents, grand-parents and possibly even great-grand-parents. However, beyond that, in actuality, would be conjecture. Those persons who may be 'adopted' for some reason will surely have other notions of their origins.

If we take the definition (above):

'racism

1 Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.'

I believe we have the concept here, if I may be allowed, in a 'nutshell'.
At least, that is the notion that prevails at this time in 'history' when others talk of 'racism'. The ignorance lies in the engineering of prejudice for what one might call (in litotes) political reasons.
The word 'prejudice' devolves from the word pre-judgement (Old French).
The notion of 'race' seems to be that what we call human creatures, is conflated with the fact that humans can be divided into other species of some kind such as creatures we call, cats, dog, birds and/or whatever else. The 'moral' dimension of 'race' is singularly lacking, of course.

What I see is that emotions are used as way to manipulate. The problem-reaction-solution dialectic often contains elements of shame, fear and anger in order for us to accept the solution for the created problem.

Now for example it seems like the Nutwork wants to clear certain areas in the middle east from various ethnic groups, so they create conflicts and the solution that these groups migrate permanently to European countries. This of course creates problems, but any disagreement by the people living in Europe is portrayed as racism. I hope they are pushing it too far this time and causes people to wake up and see the baseless shaming of certain ethnic groups in the propagandized media that's been going on during the 20th century, but I'm not counting on it.

A lesson in grammar for those who might need it, or have forgotten some of its implications.

Labels

A label is a written or verbal device attached to an object (which in the case about which I am writing may refer to a static object or a living entity).
A label is, in grammar, a word which is called a noun. A noun is a 'naming' word. Thus we may describe an object with certain attributes as, for example, a table (with which we may be familair in a general sense) as a device upon which we may place other objects with a desire to their use for various purposes.
Labels are useful, but may also be applied (against their will) to anything at all, and morally, with positive or negative connotations.
We should be wary how we apply them.

To objects, we may apply a descriptive word (adjective). We might say, for example, add a 'large' or 'small' appellation to our 'table' thus rendering it with a 'quality', in this case its size.

Engineering of a noun, for example that a person is a 'racist' (which is a noun) is fraught with difficulties unless we remember that 'racist' is applied to a person (noun) without any explanation as to why it was applied in the first place without an explanation as to what a 'racist' might be in the first place.

Who might really care what the colour of a table is, if it serves a useful purpose?

However, we are sure that lables can be dangerous. They are applied to everything that we observe. I repeat, we should be wary of them, they are not a survival mechanism.

Labels are chosen (engineered, if you will) to distract us. Lables do not tell us anything that is useful for us in regard to human behaviours.

To be continued...

***************************************************************
PART THREE

Of aboriginals

According to the Oxford English Dictionaries:

Aboriginals:

adjective

1 Inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists; indigenous.

This definition suits my purpose here.

From where we personally derive (were born) upon this planet, is of no consequence. In a sense, we are all aboriginals (the original inhabitants of a place whereupon we were born). Our personal heritage is that only.
To deny others, for whatever reason, must be contrary. There is no entity to deny otherwise, other than deny the entity that so proclaims.
To claim that one is 'born' in a certain place at a certain time and thus is 'such and such' a person 'belongs' to that situation cannot be a truism, since we can 'move' anywhere we are predisposed given the means to do so. Thus we move from place to place to find a suitable environment for our future survival.
To remove or try to change original (aboriginal) inhabitants for our own purposes is inhuman.
That we may have the ability with our tools to decimate an aboriginal community or communities, is neither here nor there.

Just to get things clear, immigrants are those people who are forced to go somewhere else because their 'home' situation is intolerable and they go wherever they are not 'thrown out'.
Emigrants are those who wish to go somewhere else other than their usual place.
No 'moral' conclusions should be derived from these definitions.

A personal story (typical of many).

In 1962, I was working in London for a shipping company. A cousin of mine was emmigrating to Australia. I had easy access to Australia House and was intrigued. My family decided that the notion was interesting. We thus emmigrated to Western Australia in 1963.
Thus we were immigrants. We did not have to go, it was a decision.

This issue is very important because we are (apparently) assailed by the notion of 'immigrants', usually of a 'race' (depending on the 'flavour' of the month) into Europe from countries determined to undermine legitimate 'regimes' from their healthy purpose and thus possible 'immigrants' which has devolved into 'migrants' (as opposed to 'displaced persons', which was a canard of the WW2 scenario).

Frankly, one should not be bothered by this tripe of 'racism'. I have worked and loved all the people that I have met. My own wife was not of my 'race'. Most of my dear friends are not of my 'race'. For them, I would not be what I may be. Bless them.

In short, 'racism' is applied by the same entities that proclaim all the other deceptive filth they peddle.
PART FIVE

Of restaurants and other places

In all major cities and towns, we apparently visit places of interest, whether to placate our appetites or for various other reasons. Where is the 'racism'?
We imbibe German beers, Pizzas, French cheeses, MacDonalds, Kentucky Fried chickens, Fish and Chips, Thai restaurant foods and a plethora of other delights. The list is endless.
Where is the racism?
Who or what is 'calling the tune' here?

'Racism' is a state of mind perpetrated by the ignorati. They are the would-be controllers who manufacture or engineer your lives if you so wish or want.

Just to get things clear, immigrants are those people who are forced to go somewhere else because their 'home' situation is intolerable and they go wherever they are not 'thrown out'.
Emmigrants are those who wish to go somewhere else other than their usual place.

Since you make an effort in defining words here, isn't immigrant simply what you are called in the country you move to regardless of the cause?

I'll just chime in if I may - don't forget expatriate or short form expat:

expatriate (ĕk-spāˈtrē-ātˌ)►

v.
To send into exile. See Synonyms at banish.
v.
To remove (oneself) from residence in one's native land.
v.
To give up residence in one's homeland

I'm not sure what the difference with emigrant is - perhaps except this is the middle class / professional / "money" version?

I believe a returning expat (an "ex-expat") may, on occasion, be called be an inpatriate or "inpat":

n. An employee of a multinational company who is from a foreign country but transferred from a foreign subdivision to the corporation’s home country.
adj. Of or relating to people who are inpatriates, or to inpatriation.

Just to get things clear, immigrants are those people who are forced to go somewhere else because their 'home' situation is intolerable and they go wherever they are not 'thrown out'.

Emmigrants are those who wish to go somewhere else other than their usual place.

Patrix respnded:
Since you make an effort in defining words here, isn't immigrant simply what you are called in the country you move to regardless of the cause?

My apologies. My statements were badly worded. Actually, I should have mentioned 'refugees'. Refugees are those who, for some reason are forced (or perhaps feel forced) to leave a certain location. They are often called immigrants when they end up somewhere else where they may be seen as not wanted (or indeed required).

This notion is apparent with what is called (in Europe, at least) the 'Immigrant' or 'Refugee' crisis. The terms seem to be interchangeable depending on your location of sources of data. (A deliberate confusion?)

********************************************************
Going on...

I think that there are some questions which need to be addressed. There must be many more.

How does one define 'race'?

Are 'Americans' a race? No, they are people who live on a continent we call America.

Are 'Australians' a race? No, they are people who live on a continent we call Australia.

Are Jewish people a race? No, they are people who live within other lands since they are a nomadic people.

Which 'race' are my own children? They have a 'West Indian' mother and a 'British' father.

Are there any 'races' at all? No, they are people who live in various locations.

Does 'racism' then actually exist or is it merely that one group doesn't like another group for whatever reason they concoct for themselves?

Is 'racism' inherent in different groups of people?

Is 'racism' apparent because there is a perceived 'threat' to something, jobs, housing, benefits?

Personally, I believe one of the main reasons that some groups do not like other groups is because they are perceived as a threat of some kind (real or imaginary).

I will give an example.

In the U.K. in the early 1960's there was created a deliberate influx of what was chosen to be called the 'West Indies'. These people were invited into the country to take jobs in industries such as car manufacturing and especially the railway system, nursing and so forth. This caused havoc in communities where darker-skinned people were considered not only possibly inferior but were 'taking our jobs'. The fact that no-one else wanted to be a baggage handler (or whatever) did not enter the equation. Signs appeared in the windows of many boarding houses reading 'No blacks' (for example). Nurses were in short supply. Males of 16, 17 or 18 (myself included) were in short supply after their fathers were killed in engineered wars.

People would sell their houses if a West Indian family moved into next door. I know this for certain because one of my family living in London, did just that (much to my shame). Later, I discovered that I believe there was some jealousy because 'they' knew all the 'tricks' of getting any benefits they could, when the 'ordinary' Englishman hadn't a clue because they didn't get the same literature given to the 'immigrants' (which has become a dirty word).

When I emmigrated (with my family) to Australia, from Australia House in London, we were given a fairly thick volume giving us all the entitlements we could get in Australia, I think I still have it in my library. I am sure the 'Australians' didn't have one.

These things create dissention.

There is another big issue. Why don't certain people like other groups from 'foreign' lands?
I believe it could well be that it is due to (manufactured) wars and the invasion of other countries to plunder and take control of property and resources. This seems to be especially what we call 'Western' groups (for example, what the British and French call the 'colonies').
It is no wonder some people don't like others. Not inherently (which I think is very important) but because people have been forced (on pain of death, sometimes) to fight them without knowing why (except for untruths). Think both 'World Wars'.

If you believe that there are 'races' of people, then I suppose one must entertain the notion of 'racism'. However, if you just believe that there are different people living in different locations who have adapted to their situation, then they are 'people who live in [.......] (insert name of location).

What really bugs me is that we are constantly bombarded with traits that certain peoples have that we might find offensive, humourous or whatever and to which we attribute lables. The French don't like the British. The British don't like the French etc. ad nauseum.

And now for a little light relief. Warning! some 'strong' language.

I think this man really nailed a deal of things. You have probably heard of him. His name is George Carlin.

I think assembling a number of these (primarily “race” related) events here may be a good place to start, at least in terms of breaking down the social engineering as it pertains to “racism.”

Stoking the Fire Pit of Racism

I’ll lead off with the first two that come to mind, since they are both readily discernible as contrived media events with the not-so-subtle objective of spraying gasoline straight at the “flames” of this perpetual conflict.

The first one (of my two examples in this post) was heavily reported, and subsequently referred to as “The Charleston Church Shooting.” This particular media event took place on June 17, 2015. For those who may not recall this story, this is the one whereby a young scrawny white “man” walked into a “black” church and opened fire, killing 9 people.

I much appreciate your sensible approach introducing this 'oh-so-touchy' subject matter - as you judiciously lay out the grounds for this discussion by carefully defining the words and semantics involved.

Also, I can very much relate to this sentence of yours:

sharpstuff wrote:"Frankly, one should not be bothered by this tripe of 'racism'. I have worked and loved all the people that I have met. My own wife was not of my 'race'. Most of my dear friends are not of my 'race'. For them, I would not be what I may be. Bless them."

As someone who has been an emigrant/immigrant (or "expat", call it what you will) for ca. 97% of my life (spanning now over half a century), I have been fortunate enough to live in several countries / continents and have had numerous friends of all skin hues & creeds whom I loved - and who loved me. "Racism" is thus a totally alien concept to my persona - although I'm perfectly aware that it exists in many forms. In spite of this, I have recently been laughed and scoffed at (by an old friend of mine) for stating that I have less than 0% racism in my veins. The question is: why? Why would anyone (who knows me well) accuse be of being a "racist"?

This topic is, as I see it, possibly the most sensitive and stigma-loaded of our era (though I doubt it has been so ever since the dawn of times). To be sure, the news media is now relentlessly bombarding this world's population with "racism-based-crime" horror stories. The current "fad" prevailing in the MSM is, of course, to blame the muslims (as if muslims were 'a race'!) for perpetrating the vast majority of all sorts of "terror deeds" - from raping white women to crashing airplanes into our skyscrapers. Alternatively - and from time to time - we are told that "white supremacists" (such as "Anders Breivik" of the infamous "2011 Oslo terror attack") are committing such atrocities. This awful behavior, we are told, is motivated by their hate of "our way of life" - and of the depraved Western civilization as a whole. At the same time, and so as to further foment (read : "engineer") racism among our world's populace, massive immigration flows are clearly being facilitated by the PTB (the Powerclowns-That-Be) - to the point of unsustainability in certain urban areas - leading to social unrest. (see "The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan")

Don't get me wrong, though: I am the first one who would say that the Western powers have criminally invaded, bombed, colonized other people's lands - and even genocided their native inhabitants. So one could say that the current mass immigrations "serves us (the Western people) right". However, are you and I personally responsible for these colossal crimes? I don't think so. We are just concerned individuals who deplore the crimes of our forefathers (although I don't know of any of my own ancestors who participated directly in this reckless, murderous loot). Our generation is just becoming aware of the obvious mass deceptions which were put in place (for their own gain) by a gang of deranged power maniacs which now "runs" this world of ours. We are now even coming to realize that the official narratives of WW1 and WW2 were two big, fat lies - which claimed thousands of innocent persons' lives.

Therefore, for a forum like ours (which boldly strives to expose mass deceptions), it would behoove our active members not to shy away from this spiny discourse - and to tackle it in thoughtful and intelligent manner - while unshackling ourselves from the leash of so-called "political correctness" (which is no more than a contrivance concocted by the PTB to stifle dissent and public inquiry).

We are obviously all being set up to argue with each other endlessly about racial issues and, by extension, religion-related issues. The issue thus becomes: Who is behind this crap? Who are the instigators and "profiteers" of this vile ploy to fuel hatred and strife between this planet's (mostly) peaceful citizens? And why is it so hard for most people to realize that "we the people" are being deliberately provoked, on a daily basis, by those "nameless & obscure occult forces"? Hence, for this discussion to have any meaningful purpose, these are questions that - in my honest opinion - must necessarily be raised. Racism is obviously being engineered for divide & conquer purposes - and we've all had enough of it. We need to focus on those who are engineering racism - and call them out.

Now, picture in your mind an island with, say, 5000 inhabitants. On this island, there are five tribes (or "races", if you will) living in peace and harmony: the Yellows, the Reds, the Greens, the Browns and the Blues - each with their own skin color, culture and religion. One day, it is discovered that the Blues tribe's sacred texts contains chapters wherein it is written that they, the Blues, are God's chosen people (i.e. the supreme tribe) and that the other tribes are inferior beings whose only purpose is to serve the Blue tribe - and that every form of deception must be deployed so as to attain this goal. It should be easy to imagine what sort of impact this shocking revelation would have among the other four tribes. In all probability, they would say that the Blue tribe has gone insane - and needs to be confined (as an obligatory safety measure) to their own territory on the island. Most likely, the four tribes would build a wall around the Blues' territory - so as to prevent them from spreading their demented notions of "race supremacy" to their own children. The schools of these four tribes would then teach their children of the dangers of fanatical megalomania, using the example of the Blue tribe's abominable sacred texts. It would be apparent to every constituent of the four tribes that the Blues tribe's peculiar religion promotes the very highest and virulent form of racism, bigotry and sheer hatred (of the "non-Blues" people).

I have reinstated your post which was moved to the Derailing Room yesterday. Your post is in fact quite relevant to this thread, since it features an interview of Charles Murray - whose work has (citing Wikipedia) "drawn accusations of scientific racism". Murray is the co-author (with Richard Herrnstein) of the very controversial book "The Bell Curve" (1994). The book's basic gist is that modern scientific/genetic studies are gradually confirming that the "Blues" tribe has a higher IQ than the rest of this planet's population.

I have never met a person whom I have considered to be racist who thought they themselves were racist.

In fact, the long developed opinions of the racist became their legitimized opinions for a good reason, according to them, whether it be from notions crystallized in family culture, limited experience and/or just plain old ignorance. Because of this I’m not sure that we ourselves are the best judge of our own level of, let’s use empires word, racism.

I’m not saying you, Simon, are a racist. I am just saying racists don’t think they are racists, unless they are total assholes.

In the end, though, it seems racism is just a word empire uses to define people by one incorrect notion. I have also never met a person who had faulty notions from family culture, limited experience and/or just plain old ignorance about just one race or ethnicity or group of people. Their incorrect notions are wide spread, covering income levels, genders, ethnicities, religions, political affiliations, education level, concern for the planet etc.

Seems to me racism is one small factor of generalized ignorance concerning the other humans with which we share the planet.

Kham wrote:
Seems to me racism is one small factor of generalized ignorance concerning the other humans with which we share the planet.

Dear Kham,

I agree with your above statement (apart from the word "small" - which I'd swap with "huge"). The thing is, this ignorance has been growing exponentially in later decades - and especially in matters of "racial intolerance". For instance, in Italy where I live there was hardly a trace (say, 20 years ago) of any sort of 'hatred' or intolerance against muslims / Arabs / Africans. Italy was, in fact, famed worldwide for its friendliness towards the Arabic world (and Africa in general). Today, this is no longer true: there has been a virtual explosion of rampant "Islamophobia" all over the press and social media. On Facebook, for example (yes I "confess" that I have an FB page, mostly so as to stay in touch with my local friends), hardly a day goes by without someone posting some appalling "racial slur" against "muslims / brown or black" people (and yes, even some distant acquaintances of mine occasionally indulge in such cringeful crap - *sigh*). Moreover, it is simply not true that no one will ever admit to be a racist. I've heard various local folks (on the street/or at social gatherings) utter words more or less to this tune: "Yes, call me a bloody racist! If some bloody towelheads can blow themselves up in a restaurant - or crash a truck into a street crowd, I certainly AM a bloody racist!"

It is an extremely sad state of affairs, since as our forum readers will be well aware of, practically ALL of the supposed "terror attacks" around the world (the vast majority of which are blamed on the aforementioned people - the recurring 'catchword' being "muslim terrorists") are entirely staged psyops - courtesy of the "empire", as you call it. Now, pray tell, can you guess which particular "ethnic group" (if any) might "be behind" / orchestrate such a vicious and seemingly endless 24/7 defaming campaign against (foremostly) the Arabic world?

And this has been going on for a long, long time. You may wish to read an old (April 2010) post of mine, titled:
"ABU NIDAL vs BIN LADIN" viewtopic.php?f=25&t=197

One could argue that the idea of racism is the new incarnation of the hereditary sin. There must be a reason that the unprivileged don’t have the same good life as the privileged and this reason is the collective sin that the unprivileged are guilty of because of their heritage. In the old Christian world it was being a commoner. Commoners did not deserve a privileged life because they were not approved by God (anointed). And the Church reminded them of their sins every week and that they had to fear God (especially his anointed), repent, work hard and pay taxes to the privileged in order to not spend an eternity in hell after this earthly life.

Today we are subjected to the same thing through media. They remind us about our collective sin - Racism. The evil we have within us because we belong to a certain group. For example Christian or Muslim. We are racist against each other and other groups and have committed horrible acts in history and are still doing so – Breivik and Muslim terror attacks for example. And collectively we are destroying the planet by merely existing. We need to repent, work hard and pay our taxes to the privileged in order to make up for or the wrongdoings we are guilty of because of our heritage. And we get plenty of options to repent – We can accept to let large groups of other people to live of our land. Stop consuming the nutrients we require to stay healthy in order to save the planet and the animals, etc. etc.

A man suspected of killing 11 people in a synagogue in Pittsburgh has been charged with murder - in what is believed to be the worst anti-Semitic attack in recent US history.

Robert Bowers, 46, is accused of opening fire at the Tree of Life synagogue during its Sabbath service.

He faces 29 criminal counts, including use of a firearm to commit murder.

Police said they received first calls about an active shooter at 09:54 (9s?)local time (13:54 GMT), and sent officers to the scene a minute later.

She told me that an anti-Semite with a gun is more dangerous than an anti-Semite without a gun, so that's a good place to start.

I wonder do they mean "Goyim" instead of "anit-semite"...technically, even the IDF is "anti-semitic" as they don't particularly like Palestinians...armed or otherwise...

Fifteen-year-old Sophia Levin declared that she was a different Jew today to the one she was yesterday. Anti-Semitism, she said, had been something she thought happened elsewhere and in earlier times; but now she knew it was right here, right now

...yes, let's empower the "youff" and have their take on things [as far as MSM goes that is]...I hate to add this but 15 years is 180 months...1+8+0=...ironically also the initials of Adolf...1=A, 8=H...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_18

Extra police officers have been deployed at synagogues and Jewish centres across the US after the attack.

Of course the "good'ole" tax-payers of the USA will be "footing" this bill...
Did the same happen when "Black" churches were [allegedly] targeted by "White" racists?...

Sorry for the poor upload but does this photo from the Beeb look real?

"We believe this is the deadliest attack on the Jewish community in the history of the United States," he said in a statement.

Wouldn't the "attacks" of 11th September 2001 have been a bigger attack on the Jewish community?
Presumably, more Jews were alleged to have perished in that attack than the 11 here?
Or is it another one of these innocuous slips of the tongue showing that actually nobody died at all, either on 11-Sep-01 or 27-Oct-18?
By the way 27...2+7=9...again...